Monday, June 29, 2009

Public Option might be TOOOO successful??

Listening to the Sunday Talkies its clear, one of the biggest concerns that Republicans talk about when voicing opposition to having a public option is that IT WILL WORK TOO WELL. That so many people will chose this option that it will hurt the insurance industry.Some refer to it as the nose under the tent flap for Single Payer.

That's right!!! They oppose a public option, not because it won't work. Not because it will cost too much. Not because the government cannot possibly efficiently deliver health insurance.

Nope

They oppose it BECAUSE IT MIGHT WORK!!!

And, oh by the way, it might actually work to hold down health care costs across the board.

How horrible would it be if the government offered its citizens something that they want and that works and that helps to reduce costs???

Whose side are they on??

Clearly not on the side of all those people they think might chose the public option.

They are on the Insurance Company's side.

We have a health care crisis in this country and the Republicans demand is that we protect the profits of the insurance companies.

4 comments:

Boooooo public option. The Reps are crack smoking in their 1st grade retorts to it, but having worked in the health care industry first hand, I will be PISSED if we end up with anything that resembles the UK or Canadian systems. I am baffled at how there seems to be no middle ground between the two, or at least that anyone with a microphone and TV time is willing to discuss.

The most recent House and Senate proposals I have seen are off base and illogical, and don't get me started on Obama's genius plan. The only thing I can hope for is that he put the plan out in order to take a more logical stance in a political ploy, which I would be fine with. Both sides are out of their freaking minds with their "solutions" on this one. It's just two different sides of lunacy, and they both suck.

Noone that I know of is advocating a state owned medical system (the UK model).I, however, do advocate and support an American version of Single Payer (the Canadian model).I have friends in Canada and, despite its weaknesses, they love their health care system.AndThey pay much less per capita for their system than we pay for our while they have longer life expectancies and lower rates of infant mortality.I look forward to a good discussion.What is your objection to Single Payer.OBTW, we only go from a Public Option to something resembling Single Payer if the Public Option actually works to effeciently and effectively deliver health insurance to millions of Americans and helps to constrain costs. If the Public Option doesn't succeed, then Single Payer cannot and should not happen.If Public Option succeeds however . . .

So what is your objection to Single Payer (or for that matter to having a public option)??

The fear is not that the public option will be successful, it's that it will be cheaper than private insurance. Employers, obviously looking to lower their costs, will choose it, thus giving their employees no real choice.

When enough companies make this choice, which I think most surely will, there will cease to be a private option and we'll be stuck with a government-run health care system.

And in another fifty years we can all bemoan the fact that, like other entitlement programs, we can't really afford the system, but we're stuck with it, so the only way to keep it going will be to raise taxes.

Paul,I must have missed something.If a public option is cheaper, isn't that a good thing.If it slows the rate of health care inflation, isn't that a good thing.You presume a future that other countries haven't seen.Single Payer hasn't bankrupted Canada or any other country.But continuing the current system will bankrupt this country.One of the principle benefits of the public option (and single payer) is the ability to reduce the rate of inflation of health care costs.You presume a future that other countries have not seen.Why do you assume your doomsday vision will happen here?